HELLO AND WELCOME! Before you can post your question, you'll have to register -- it's completely free and registered users see less advertising! If you just want to browse through the existing questions, just select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. Otherwise, click here to register!. We highly recommend that you print a copy of our Guide for New Members. Enjoy!

Re: Windows 2000 > Windows XP

It's called &quot;hyperbole&quot;. I was exaggerating the youth of your system. Windows is bad because it doesn't run on old hardware, along with a ton of other reasons.

I understood that, I just think itīs funny how so many people complain about windowsī hardware requirements. I ran win 2000 on a celeron 300@450 without a problem. It only had 96Mb ram but you can get an additional 128Mb for an hourīs pay.

Computers are cheap today, extremely cheap. Sure, there are some people who canīt afford a decent computer but I think they are very few.

Re: Windows 2000 > Windows XP

you can get an additional 128Mb for an hourīs pay.

No, sorry, RAM isn't free.

I'm rather tired of people referring to their 600 MHz processors and their 256 MBs of RAM as &quot;weak&quot; systems. What's so weak about them? Maybe you're trying to run windows on them? I have a P2-300 MHz with 128 MBs of RAM, and it runs (linux) just fine. It's certainly not &quot;weak&quot;.

Computers are cheap today, extremely cheap.

Nothing's cheap when you're broke.

Sure, there are some people who canīt afford a decent computer but I think they are very few.

Re: Windows 2000 > Windows XP

Say what you want about windows, but it kicks linuxīs ass when it comes to desktops.

... says you. I've had better luck with Linux on the desktop myself. For one, Debian makes it easier than Windows to install programs. It's pretty much unarguable that typing &quot;apt-get install program&quot; is easier than the Windows method. Also, there's so much more free programs with Linux. When I used Windows, I was such a software pirate. I don't really feel bad about it either. The software I wanted to use cost far more than I had. In fact, I pirated Windows 2000 itself because I consider Windows 9x to be half an operating system and I needed tools from a more complete one, like Win 2k. I can't afford to pay $300 for it though. Since I've used Linux and FreeBSD, I haven't pirated a single program. I doubt any authority would have ever figured out my software was pirated, but it makes me feel good that if they did check my computer, it's all legal now.

Also, on the side of the Windows users, if you have old hardware, you can run old versions of Windows. Windows 95 will run fine on a 486. NT 4 isn't bad either for the power users like me. But Microsoft doesn't sell or support these old versions anymore meaning you have to buy them used and scrounge around for support. It's really a pity that they'd abandon these old ones to make people upgrade. And yes, today's operating systems should not require a 600 Mhz processor unless it's for a major server. I have an 850 Mhz Thunderbird and I would consider it fast. I'm shocked that it's not too far above the minimum requirements for XP. I just bought it a few months ago and then the fastest processor was just a little over 1 Ghz. I shouldn't have to buy new hardware about every year just to keep up. Before this system I used a Pentium 2 233 Mhz. I'll admit that it was pretty slow by the standards of that time but I don't think Windows 2000 should have ran as slow as it did. If the operating system is this much of a resource hog, what's left for the programs?